Internet Marketing Blog

Be Evil

I conceded the notion that privacy exists years ago. Considering how much I publish online, considering how much of my activity takes place online, I probably have far fewer things that are private than most people.

But when you take a moment to think about it, the degree two which we entrust faceless organizations with the intimate details of our daily lives is scary. Perhaps no company knows more about us than Google. And let me point out at this point that I am a big fan of Google.

As I've detailed previously, Google tracks everything from my search activity to my blog posts to my daily reading habits to my travel destinations. Google has captured me on their StreetView mapping service, and their satellites can conceivably track my every move. But they don't need to because I've got Google search and Google Maps on my phone.

What is scary is that example after example has proven that if a company wants to, it will exploit the private information they collect. And it really isn't a matter of being evil or not. The problem is that in large institutions--government, nonprofits, or corporations--the structure of the organization itself makes such exploitation easy.

Ethical behavior within such structures really comes down to the choices that individuals make. But those ethical dilemmas are more easily glossed over due to the pressures of maintaining employment and an infrastructure that provides easy outs.  People are often responsible for just a portion of the overall decision to follow an unethical path, so that decision doesn't appear irresponsible at all.

Earlier this month, the Sydney Morning Herald published a story that quoted Google's Vice President apparently distancing the search company from their famous motto, Don't Be Evil:

"It really wasn't like an elected, ordained motto...I think that 'Don't Be Evil' is a very easy thing to point at when you see Google doing something that you personally don't like; it's a very easy thing to point out so it does get targeted a lot."

Well, yes it is and that's entirely the point and the brilliance of the motto.

Search Engine Land points out that "Amit Patel, Google employee number 6 and one of Google's first engineers, coined 'Do Not Be Evil' in 1999 when the engineers became afraid of the pressure they might receive from the business units of the company."

If organizations are ultimately institutionally incapable of ensuring ethical behavior, than what will? A public motto that pledges ethical behavior.

Patel's brilliance is his long-term vision. As an engineer, he was in a better position than most people to understand the vast trove of data a company like Google could compile on individuals. Such information stores could potentially invite abuse.

Do Not Be Evil. The phrase is simple and unambiguous and, in the end, gives Google no choice but to maintain the motto because the alternative is...evil.

Chop It In Half - The Dysfunction Of Large Organizations

I know this isn't about Internet marketing but how organizations function--or fail to--has long been an interest, and complaint, of mine.

I have believed for years that once an organization reaches 100 employees, you should chop it in half. This comes to mind because of an article in today's New York Times about the cluelessness of many Human Resources departments.

The story cites a Workspan Magazine study conducted by Spherion and Harris Interactive which finds that the top three reasons HR people cite for employees deciding whether to stay or leave an employer are absolutely different from the top three reasons employees themselves cite.

Employees:

1. Benefits
2. Compensation
3. Growth and Earning Potential

Human Resource Professionals:

1. Management Climate
2. Supervisor Relationship
3. Work Environment

HR people thought Compensation would be in seventh place, which is where the employees listed Supervisor Relationship. The results do not surprise me at all.

The reasons I think companies should consist of fewer than 100 employees is because 1) they are by and large far more nimble and flexible and therefore more capable of adapting to a quickly-changing marketplace, 2) because everyone knows one another, there is far more accountability within the organization, 3) office politics are more easily kept in check, and, most importantly, 4) hiring decisions are made much closer to those who know most about the job in question.

I've worked for, with, and observed organizations of all sizes and have come to the conclusion that the Human Resources department can become an unhealthy power center that can often get in the way of an organization's ability to excel. I do not fault the human resource people themselves; I think it's just the nature of the beast. As an organization grows in size, so does the power of HR.

Obviously, you cannot run an organization with thousands of employees without a human resources department. It is simply most efficient for big organizations to have a central unit that administers personnel matters.

The main problem, though, is human resources' role in the hiring process. Because they are often the main unit through which the new hire screening process begins, they are the first wall that can turn away qualified candidates. Since it is impossible for them to know the ins and outs of each job position, they simply do not know what they don't know. As a result, they can inadvertently turn away qualified and talented people who may be the best candidates for the job.

I don't pretend to know the solution to the problem, but here are a few ideas: 1) Job descriptions that are written by the people who actually hold the position; 2) exit interview questions that ask the outgoing employee what qualifications they think are needed for their job, and 3) whenever possible, allowing departments or business units of 100 or fewer people to be run, as much as possible, essentially as a separate company in order to try and create an environment conducive to peer-to-peer accountability.